Why Climate Change Is Overlooked and How to Address It

For many years, climate scientists and advocates have held onto a sense of optimism. They believe that once the impacts of global warming become undeniable, both individuals and governments will take significant action. The hope is that a major disaster—whether it be a fierce hurricane, extreme heat, or widespread flooding—will force a collective recognition of the gravity of the issue and lead to meaningful change. However, despite the increasing frequency of such disasters, climate change continues to rank low on voters’ agendas, and effective policy responses remain elusive.

This widespread inaction is often attributed to various political or structural barriers. Yet, decades of psychological studies indicate that more profound factors may be at play. The human brain often fails to recognize gradual changes.

Many areas are experiencing severe climate-related issues, but for the majority of the world, the changes manifest as slow and subtle shifts in daily weather.

This gradual nature of change presents challenges. People primarily assess climate issues based on personal experiences: there’s a heightened concern for an unusually hot day than when the weather feels typical. However, as conditions quietly worsen, the perception of “normalcy” shifts. This is often referred to as the boiling frog effect, where subtle and gradual changes fail to trigger alarm bells, leading to a state of indifference: akin to a frog in a pot of water that is gradually heated.

In 2020, we researched climate impacts in Princeton, New Jersey. This area is not burdened by wildfires or droughts, but it has seen a loss of something significant: winter ice skating. For many years, Carnegie Lake would freeze enough for skating, but now it seldom does.

Conversations with long-time residents and a review of local newspaper archives revealed a marked decline in ice skating on the lake over the last century, evoking a sense of loss. This disruption to winter traditions made Princeton’s experience with climate change feel more immediate, tangible, and personal.

We then posed the question: could binary climate indicators—such as “Lake Frozen” vs. “Lake Not Frozen”—serve as more effective alerts than graphs depicting gradual temperature increases?

I explored this concept through a series of experiments. Participants were presented with one of two graphs. One illustrated rising winter temperatures in a fictional town, while the other depicted whether the lake froze each year. Notably, both graphs represented the same underlying climate trends, but reactions varied significantly.

Those who viewed the binary “freeze or not” graphs consistently acknowledged that climate change had a more substantial impact compared to those who saw the temperature graphs. Follow-up studies analyzing data from North American and European lakes corroborated these findings. When climate impacts were communicated in stark terms, individuals responded more seriously.

What motivated this difference? We discovered that binary data creates an impression of sudden shifts. When people observed a series of winters where the lake froze juxtaposed with years it didn’t, they perceived a distinct “before” and “after,” despite the gradual nature of change.

Climate change transcends mere physical challenges; it also encompasses psychological dimensions. As long as we convey it in ways that resonate, we risk desensitizing our warning signals until it’s too late.

We encourage policymakers, journalists, and educators to leverage these insights. Highlighting specific losses that resonate—such as winters without ice skating, drought-damaged harvests, and summers plagued by wildfires—can be impactful. Utilize visuals that contrast “what we had” with “what we’ve lost.”

Allow people to witness the changes—it’s not merely about the slope of the line.

Grace Lew is affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania, while Lachitt Dubay is affiliated with UCLA.